1 through 5: Chris Grant’s Legacy

1.) How would you describe Chris Grant’s approach to team (re)building?

Tom: Chris Grant seemed determined to avoid the challenging circumstances that the Danny Ferry-era front office encountered. Ferry ran out of draft picks and cap space and was stuck trying to shuffle overpaid role players in and out according to the Cavs matchup needs. (Take a moment to remember that the 2010 Cavs failed because LeBron choked, not because of any team building failure.) Chris Grant, conversely, stockpiled draft picks, refused to commit long-term resources to role players, and hoped his core, if given ample opportunity, would blossom into a big-3 at just the right time to make a splashy acquisition. Filling in the role-player blanks seems like it was a “cross that bridge when we get there” afterthought.

Kevin: Pretty clearly he subscribed to the OKC Model of rebuilding; maintaining a relatively miserable team for a few years to accumulate elite draft picks. In Cleveland, it is not working. There was a brief sliver of time when I really thought it was. From January through April last year, Tristan appeared to have turned a corner, looking like a capable offensive player to go along with his defense and rebounding. From January to March, Dion upped his game significantly. Kyrie was an All-Star. They were all 20 or 21. Then everything unravelled, maybe in part due to everyone being so young…the inmates were running the asylum. Once upon a time, I wrote a week-long series titled “Building a Winner”. The basic thesis was that pretty much every good team of the prior ten years had not built themselves via the “OKC strategy” that Cleveland was employing, and that the teams picking at the top of the lottery for a few years straight, tended to not get a lot better than that. This is something that Mallory has continued as a theme since then. A couple years into the future, look at the up & coming teams…Indiana, Houston, Golden State, Portland, Phoenix. How many players that they drafted in the top five are important players on their teams? Lamarcus Aldridge? The teams with runs of high lottery trips like Washington, Charlotte, Sacramento, Minnesota, Cleveland…where are those teams headed? The relatively random success of the Thunder skewed people into thinking it was a reliable strategy, when it never had much of a track record. It will be interesting to see what becomes of Philly and Orlando.

Robert: He tried to correct two things that plagued the Cavs during the LeBron years: lack of draft picks and financial flexibility. Dan Gilbert probably mistook a future full of first rounders and cap flexibility as being “ready to win,” which we now know is clearly not the same thing but it was something that Grant was very successful in doing. And it wasn’t easy. Grant was also a notoriously tough to deal with but, now through unceremoniously-fired-colored glasses, I like to think that his strategy was “If some teams have advantages in free agency, I’ll make sure the Cavaliers will always have the advantage in trades we make.” Or he was just a prickly crag who vastly overvalued what was his. Somethin’.

Nate: Grant was a big fan of guys who rated high on advanced analytics like Hollinger’s/Pelton’s draft rater, like Dion Waiters. In trades, he had the backing to take on salary to acquire future assets in order to give other teams cap relief. He collected future draft picks and short term/middling productive contracts like a doomsday prepper collects toilet paper. When Grant finally did start adding longer term contracts and investing significant dollars in free agents, he picked Jarrett Jack and Earl Clark: guys who seem as useless as bringing a BB Gun to the zombie apocalypse.

Patrick: Hoard draft picks for a while, then theoretically use high lottery picks as building blocks for a good team. These young players age and improve together then make a playoff run. He nailed the first part. Two 1’s and two 4’s is about as good as it gets for three years of drafts. But this strategy is highly dependent on a quick refractory period of awfulness, reversed by picking good players. The point isn’t to draft forever, it’s to dip your way into some talent then ride back up to relevance.

One thing Chris Grant never lacked was draft picks.

2.) At what point did you suspect Grant’s rebuild might be in trouble?

Tom: I began having suspicions that the Cavs core wasn’t close to competing near the end of last season. After studying the lineups for my Trends, Ranks, Outliers, series, I noticed that the main difference between the awful team of Nov/Dec and the “budding” team of February was mostly due to the Herculoids. Kyrie Irving and Dion Waiters had never shown an ability to maximize each others talents, Tristan Thompson was trying to set league records for % of shots blocked, and no one on the team could defend. The Cavaliers’ one month dance with competence was on the backs of some individual efforts and the incredibly entertaining and effective offensive chemistry of the 2nd Unit led by Shaun Livingston. To this day it is difficult to see the synergy between Irving, Waiters, and Thompson, and TT can only play average basketball for so long before he settles into the league as a average player.

Kevin: For a while, I liked Grant’s moves. I liked the Waiters and Zeller picks. The accumulation of draft picks was neat. Last spring is when every move became a head scratcher. I tried offering a semi-positive outlook, mainly because life is more fun that way, but hiring Mike Brown without an interview of anyone else? We knew who Mike Brown was; I really wanted the franchise to try to find something fresh, someone that could be special. I had Anthony Bennett fifth on my Big Board, plus the team already employed a 22-year old power forward, so that was a surprise. Certainly by the metrics that I respect the most, Earl Clark is not, and has never been a decent NBA player…and he was apparently the answer at small forward. The Bynum signing was exactly what it was supposed to be, a dice roll. I wish the team had signed a relatively cheap insurance big man in free agency, or acquired one via trade. It seemed that acquiring a wing shooter would have been a higher off-season priority. Then, the season started. Kyrie, Tristan and Dion all began backsliding from their prior performance. The head-scratching decisions of the spring & summer looked like disasters. And it started to look clear this rebuild was taking on a 6 year plan.

Robert: I think I wrote it right after the Mike Brown hire: Grant had maneuvered himself into the position of “next domino to fall” at the slightest hint of team tremor. Wasn’t expecting a mid-season dismissal, but even my lowest lowered execrations weren’t this low. I didn’t fully come around to the reality of just how broken this team has become until after the west coast trip when they began their current string of insulting efforts. hashtag teambroke

Nate: Grant’s rebuild was in trouble the minute he drafted Anthony Bennett, who represented, in Grant’s mind, the best prospect in a poorly perceived draft class. He was a high risk/high upside player that was always going to take a long time to develop, Unfortunately, for a team that had an expressed goal of not being back in the lottery, he was the exact wrong pick. A player like Oldadipo who could have helped the team compete more immediately, or Noel, who at least wouldn’t have hurt the team, would have helped his job. The narrative was that he tried to trade out of that pick, but couldn’t find a good deal. Sometimes, the “good” deal is the best one available. Grant’s need to “win” every trade probably sunk him in that draft.

Patrick: Not until this year, when Dion and Tristan didn’t improve. It looks like the players they are is a decent approximation of the players they’ll be, at least on the Cavs. Couple that with Anthony Bennett’s, uh, struggles, the ineffective summer signings, and Mike Brown’s hiring and his weird inability to get anything from a talented roster, and it becomes clear that Grant had a good idea in the abstract that didn’t come to fruition.

The Cavs core hasn’t fulfilled expectations.

3.) Do you think firing Grant will ultimately improve the team’s outlook, or did they ax the wrong guy?

Tom: I don’t think firing him will change much. Drafting Joel Embiid and making smart FA moves in the offseason will improve the team’s outlook. Overall I thought Grant did a decent job. It feels like he was trying to time the Cavaliers’ ascent with the 2014 offseason and that he never got a chance to make a blockbuster move to snag Kevin Love or do something crazy. I disagree with a few things Grant did early on, mainly, his choice to draft “highest perceived ceiling available” with no regard for fit. But I can’t shake the feeling that he was a smart GM that understood how to navigate a small-market ship through the tumultuous waters of the new CBA. We’ll see if David Griffin (who reminds me of Robert California) can break the Cavs out of their apocalyptic malaise.

Kevin: This season appears shot, and this move had to be made. In the short term, a new GM wouldn’t seem to have any impact to substantially improve or change the team. If Mike Brown has lost the locker room, that is a huge problem. Too bad they owe him $16 million still.

Robert: Who’s the right guy?! Even if you don’t exactly fawn over a Mike Brown coached team, you can’t think he’s THIS bad of a coach, can you? Some of the problem with these Cavs is, yes, while they work together like Autobots and Decepticons, no one has written off the long term projection of some of these players (though, to be sure, Tristan Thompson is strongly hinting at the fact that he’s an 11/8 guy for life). So, blowing up the roster still seems premature. You just rehired this coach. Hulk mad. Hulk punch wall. (Note: Chris Grant just happens to be that wall.)

Nate: It ought to. Tristan and Dion’s agents have to be telling them: you’re not going to get nearly this many minutes or opportunities if you’re playing for most other teams in the league. How many teams would Tristan Thompson start for right now? Three? If firing Grant gets the team to play better and pull their heads out of their bums, then it was a necessary move. Firings, especially in the NBA, are often unfair. Look at Mo Cheeks. He gets fired for Joe Dumars’ stupid moves. Grant had to know that Brown’s $16 million remaining after this season made Grant the expendable one. The firing sent a message, whether it was fair or not: ultimately it’s up to the players to play harder. If they do, and Brown keeps losing through obvious coaching incompetence, then fire him too.

Patrick: Eh, I think it’s kinda missing the point. He wasn’t adept at pivoting the team towards being good, but his job is mostly player assembly and there was talent. His record in trades is good, but the Cavs plans were all contingent on drafting well and he didn’t do that. However, the problem goes deeper than that.

A familiar reaction to the Cavs this season.

4.) What stands out as the most indefensible decisions Grant has made as GM?

Tom: The move I hated the most was the Earl Clark deal. There was just no evidence from my vantage point that he was worth the deal they gave him. It seemed even worse in light of Shaun Livingston and Wayne Ellington getting away. Those guys or DeMarre Carroll should have been available for less money than Clark got. The one that could haunt the Cavs for a while is not getting a rim-protecting center out of 3 straight drafts. Could have (many would say should have) taken Jonas or Nerlens.

Kevin: Not investing anything in free agency earlier. Joey Graham, Samardo Samuels and Manny Harris in 2010? Mychel Thompson in 2011? Only CJ Miles in 2012? Grant didn’t need to make huge splashy moves, but there are plenty of signings that could have been made for cheap that would have improved the team at the time, and maybe actually built the winning identity and culture that he and Coach Brown talk about so much. Instead, the franchise chose to purposefully stink, make a lot of draft picks, and build the world’s wealthiest fraternity house.

Robert: Right now, it’s the Jarrett Jack signing (which, for the record, I was a huge fan of when it happened). He could not work worse in a rotation with Irving and Waiters and you really just wish Mike Brown had talked sweet to Shawn Livingston who, it turns out, would have made so much more sense as our backup / guy who knows how to move a basketball. Plus, Livingston’s got length. How did Brown let a guy with length get away?!

Nate: Gum Drop Bear was indefensible: an injured, overweight tweener who dominated a bad conference. Even when he plays “well,” he racks up fouls like a fiend, doesn’t have a position, and lacks “fire.” There’s a chance Anthony Bennett overcomes his rough start and becomes a productive player (he’s been showing signs), but it was an indefensible pick for a man tasked with returning the Cavaliers to the playoffs. Through the first half of the season Anthony Bennett was the worst player in the league who received minutes. Playing Gum Drop in NBA games was not conducive to winning.

Patrick: Poor free agent record. He did his best on selling Cleveland to Andrew Bynum and Jarrett Jack, but if those two dudes are his best signings, that’s a problem. He tended to throw too much money at the wrong dudes (ex. Earl Clark).

Bennett was seen as a reach, but his season has exceeded even Cleveland fans’ wildest imaginations.

5.) How about the most unfortunate outcomes of reasonably sound moves?

Tom: The Jarrett Jack move made a ton of sense. The Cavs are an extremely immature team and their star PG has injury concerns. So why wouldn’t you sign a 29-year-old scoring point that never gets injured and is loved (no seriously, LOVED) by his former coach for his leadership? And then there’s the Deng trade. After Grant nabbed Deng I argued with Nate that this would make the Cavs too good and if they weren’t able to re-sign Deng it would mean they rented their way right out of the lottery. And now the Cavs have been so terrible with Deng…it’s mind boggling. But the one that really gets me is the Bynum move. I gave the Bynum experiment a 25% chance of succeeding. And that’s because I thought there was a 74.99999% chance that he wouldn’t be able to overcome his injuries. But the Cavs fell victim to the 0.00001% chance that he’d work so hard to rehab in Cleveland just to become a locker room cancer. Awesome.

Kevin: Grant was always praised for his trades. Some don’t look quite as shiny in hindsight though. The Jon Leuer trade was amazing at the time. But now that Ellington and Speights are gone, the trade is Leuer for an as yet unrealized draft pick. That pick could be a high lottery pick, or could become the 25th pick in 2017. In that scenario, do we look back and say, “man, that Chris Grant was a genius. He bought a late first round pick for five million dollars five years into the future.” The Deng trade could be even worse…if Chicago is picking twelfth in 2015 on account of the Sacramento pick, and gets to swap first-rounders with the Cavs (assuming Cleveland makes the playoffs), while Luol Deng plays somewhere else (please, not Chicago), that will be the ultimate “LOL Cavs #facepalm”.

Robert: No one expected Anthony Bennett to have such an inauspicious start to his NBA career but, while it was a shocking pick, I’m still not convinced it wasn’t a reasonably sound move. That draft, thus far, has proven the stink bomb wrapped in a skunk pelt that we were all told it would be. Looking at the UNLV Bennett at least made you think, “Well, this guy might be interesting.” Unfortunately for Grant, Bennett has not (until, perhaps now — too little too late) been interesting. And embarrassing is not the -ing Grant was going for.

Nate: Jarrett Jack seemed so sound. He was 29. He’d just come off a monster playoffs next to Kyrie-like Steph Curry. Jack looked like a guy who’d be effective into his early 30s. Three more years was reasonable from a guy whose game didn’t revolve around high flying or breakneck drives to the basket, right? Sure, Jack wasn’t a great defender (despite Mike Brown ignorantly saying he was), but Jack was a good offensive player with a reputation as a leader. But who knew he’d turn into a free-throw line pull-up chucker terrified of the moment? (His crunch time free throw misses Friday were the most expected story line of the night). And this is why Mike Brown’s seat is still hot. Brown has taken two productive offense veterans: Jack and Deng, and turned them into bad offensive players and worse defensive players.

Patrick: I guess I’m an Anthony Bennett truther. He was good in college! That talent didn’t just evaporate, he’ll be a lot better than many people think. However, drafting Bennett onto this roster was contingent on patience, developmental attention, and leadership to guide him, and none of these materialized. Mike Brown mismanaged the heck out of him early on, he was played out of position and there never seemed to be any chemistry. Bennett could have had a much better start given the right circumstances, but the Cavs were not those right circumstances.

Some of CG’s moves were wildly acclaimed, others criticized – seems like few have worked out.

Commentariat, how would you answer these?

46 Responses to “1 through 5: Chris Grant’s Legacy”

There have to be other issues at play that were not touched on in the above discussion. I suspect that there were some deep philosophical differences within the organization that caste a dark cloud over the heads of this very young team. In David Griffin’s press conference, he made a strong negative reference to the word “process”, which happened to be one of Grant’s favorite words to describe his undertaking as GM. Grant seemed so methodical and distant-so process oriented. I am sure there were some substantive internal disputes on how to proceed. And, “continuing with the process” just plain lost out.

I think that after the Laker loss emotions ran high. Something needed to be done. Gilbert and Grant had some type of argument. Gilbert asked him to do a specific thing (maybe – Brown’s gotta go?. Grant disagreed. Gilbert said, “ok bye.”

I think the main motivation behind Grant’s firing was the selection of Bennett over Oladipo. Gilbert liked Oladipo and Grant didn’t take him; Gilbert is probably sitting there thinking “Wait, I’m way better at evaluating talent than this guy…he gone.”

Just wish he had sent Brown packing also…plenty of good, established coaches out there looking for work.

Some of the individual picks/moves likely contributed to Gilbert’s overall displeasure. But I think the most likely scenario is this:

Gilbert: “You taked me into rehiring Brown. He’s a disaster, and it’s getting worse. We have to make a move.”
Grant: “He’ll turn it around. Give it time. I stand behind him.”
Gilbert: “It’s either him or you.”
Grant: “I won’t fire my best friend.”
Gilbert: “OK. C-ya.”

All things considered, I think Grant did a decent job at GM in terms of managing the players, roster, cap space, and assets. The questions about the pieces not fitting, and some clearly bad moves are valid, but I thought he had more hits than misses.

The EPIC FAIL was the Brown hiring. Not just the move itself, but the lack of a process surrounding it. One of the writers pointed it out earlier: Grant failed to apply his own rigorous analysis he uses in player evaluation to his coaching search. He had the opportunity and authority to make the comfortable move, and jumped at it without thinking it through objectively (or allowing anyone else to). And once on board, it’s very clear that Brown influenced Grant’s off-season heavily. Virtually all of the signings (Bynum & Clark ex-Lakers; Bennett’s connection to his son’s recruitment; Jack’s strong endorsement) had Brown’s fingerprints all over them.

What’s ironic is that both Detroit and Cleveland- both colassal disappointments- made the opposite moves they should have. Grant took the axe for Brown’s failures, and Cheeks took the fall for Dumars in Detroit.

I think Nate’s point about how the Anthony Bennett pick signaled that the whole rebuild was in trouble is the right take on the whole Grant situation.

The Anthony Bennett pick immediately threw into question Tristan Thompson’s status because everyone was immediately asking why the Cavs would select a power forward first overall if they were set at that position for the future.

When you draft a player in that slot for a player that is supposed to be a full-time starter, there’s a problem.

1) The biggest problem this year is that player development stalled. That absolutely cannot happen with a team this young. You expect players to grow by leaps and bounds when they’re as young as this group is. It just seems as if the whole team took a step backwards.

2) Some of that is on Grant (his track record this year other than the trick that he pulled off with the Bynum signing is direct part of why the team has struggled) such as JJ, but a lot of that (perhaps a majority of the blame) has to be on the coach.

I really like David Griffin. He seems much better prepared to deal with young talent than Grant…and better prepared to get them to work together…and better prepared still to get them to buy what Mike Brown is selling. Heck he at least seems interested in actually interacting with the players as individual people instead of assets and liabilities.

Nate also made an astute point about how Grant’s stubbornness in hoarding assets can also be viewed as something of a fault. Grant treated NBA trades as a “zero sum” game in which he absolutely had to “win” the trade in terms of the assets that were trading hands. Yes, that resulted in an impressive hoard of assets (Kyrie, etc.) but basketball isn’t a game of assets. It’s not a boardgame or a fantasy game when it’s a real team and the players have to have chemistry on the court and the pieces have to fit together.

The problem with Grant’s kind of view is that NBA trades can very much be a positive sum game. Here are some examples:

1) Indiana. They traded a higher immediate pick in Kawhi Leonard for a more established but lower previous pick in George Hill (who was due for an extension) due to positional need. That was the kind of trade that helps both sides even though it could be argued that Indiana sent out “more value”…

2) Indiana again. They traded for Luis Scola (among other moves) in order to boost their depth. Even though they traded away more assets in the deals that they’ve made over the past year or two; they’ve clearly boosted their bench far beyond what it was before because they’ve found a variety of bench players that fit their roles on that team.

3) Houston. Morey is similar to Grant in terms of hoarding assets, but the similarities end there. Morey is far more willing to make lateral moves or even moves that result in Houston not acquiring the best piece in order to further eventual trades. In a sense, Morey is always thinking about the move that’s coming 2 or 3 moves down the road, and he views the smaller trades leading up to big trades as facilitators. Grant was never as willing as Morey to appear to be willing to overpay for a higher quality of asset…

Goal:
Bottom out, stockpile draft picks/young talent and build a winner through the draft in 3 years. As the article mentioned, this was the small market blueprint for success in 2010 despite the fact that OKC is the outlier and Charlotte, Sacramento, Minny are the rule.

What he inherited:
The worst NBA Roster in the league. Only players that he inherited that still play NBA minutes were Andy, JJ and Mo Williams and Andy/Mo missed most of the season. This fact cannot be understated; he was basically working with an Expansion team roster.

What he did right:
Won pretty much every trade (highlights): Baron Davis, Jon Leuer, Bynum, Sessions.
Every single first round pick has made an NBA All-Rookie Team (although Bennett/Karasev will buck that trend this year).
Maintained Financial Flexibility for the coveted 2014 off season and stockpiled future draft picks

What he did wrong:
Did not foresee Jarrett Jack would turn into a lesser version of Eric Snow (impossible to see fore coming)
Addressed the SF hole by bringing in Earl Clark
Drafted AB15, although the jury is still very much out here
Opted for upside versus roster fit when drafting, although I would argue that a competent coach could overcome this

In the end, I would argue that Chris Grant did an above average job: he acquired young talent, he stockpiled future assets and he maintained financial flexibility. The problem is that the ‘build through the draft’ approach is VERY HARD. It seems to me that the wrong person was let go (cough cough Mike Brown)

I agree with you, but Byron Scott got the rawest deal of all. He went along with the “process” and got canned when a tanking team didn’t do well.

(ASIDE: Speaking of the “process”, I think it is pretty clear that they milked Kyrie’s injuries to improve lottery position, yet still fired Byron when the team finished with a poor record. Kyrie has basically been an ironman this season; and it just happened to coincide with Gilbert’s desire to avoid the draft lottery….HMMM)

This team would have a better record if they had kept Scott, just by virtue of continuity and not having to teach guys a completely new system. I’m not trying to intimate that Byron was the long-term coaching solution, but he was certainly no worse than Brown has been.

Of course, we will probably never know whether Grant decided to make the coaching change or it was a Gilbert-influenced decision. Which is why BOTH Grant and Brown should probably be unemployed right now.

So true about Byron, I hope he has had a few good laughs at Mike Brown’s expense this year. I wonder if the team hadn’t let a few of those big leads slip last year if he would still be here.

One very Non-Analytic data point is the belief that you need 2 or 3 all -stars to be a contender. Well, Kyrie is an All Star, Deng was playing at an All Star Level in Chicago, and Andy has played like an All Star post Bynum release. It sure seems like the talent is there and Mike Brown is not getting anything out of it…

If a GM is picking for fit – then Otto Porter was the clear choice this year.

If you can’t take AB because it of Tristan Thompson, then you can’t take Oladipo because 2 top four picks went for guards the previous two years. Besides, while Oladipo had his fans, MacLemore was the more probable choice.

I preferred Barnes because he was a better fit. At this point, Dion appears to be the more talented player and has a better chance of becoming something special.

Finally, I preferred Valanciunas because he was a better fit, but the reason TT was taken:
1) Off the charts advanced stats. (Grant was big on those)
2) Outstanding character and work ethic. Outgoing and a great teammate.
3) Valanciunas was more raw than TT. He hardly spoke a word of English, and appeared shy – which carried a risk of having difficulty adapting to the US and the NBA.
4) Had to wait a year to get him, then probably another year to learn how to play, and his euro-contract could be a hindrance.

The thing is, even if Valanciunas ends up the better player – is he the post you want to build a championship team around? I don’t think so. He may not end up much better than Zeller and if we had picked him we’d probably still be looking for a dominant post.

I ranked this year’s players: 1) Noel 2) Bennett. I thought Oladipo and McLemore were redundant with what we had (what people are saying about Bennett) . . . and I didn’t think Porter was going to be anything special. I’m willing to wait on Bennett. I think he’ll show he has the talent for being the top choice (in 2013), but my biggest concern is I don’t know whether he has the heart of a champion.

The rebuild was doing OK. Due to the three bad drafts, it would take four years in the tank. The OKC rebuild is probably the only one ever that only took four years, and it was mainly luck.

Immaturity issues with the two best players were making it easy to position for one of the best drafts ever. Now DG has grasped fiasco from the jaws of not bad.

Now there is a good chance that now the Cavs are doomed to mediocrity for the foreseeable future. I have been watching the NBA for decades, and the worst situation is small market teams making panic moves to try to compete without a solid core, and they stay in the .400 to .500 range forever.

Gilbert had to blame someone. If Brown and Grant each had the same contract it would have been Brown. The scenario that Grover pointed out could be possible. Mike Brown is a great guy. He’s like a black bald Ned Flanders. Danny Ferry quit because Gilbert wanted Brown gone.

Grant inherited a horrible situation. There was nothing left on that 2010 Cavs team. Every player was a complimentary role player to Lebron’s insane talent. They were valuable with him and worthless without. That roster was probably the least talented non-expansion roster of all-time and it showed on the court. If Anderson Varejao is your fourth or fifth best player, you’re in a good spot. If he’s your best player, you aren’t.

I get why Grant made each of the picks that he did and I think all of them could be pieces to some else’s puzzle even though they don’t fit together. Bennett was picked because Grant probably lost faith in Thompson ever becoming a P&R partner for Kyrie and Dion.

For all the shit that Gilbert gets thrown at him from the hacks at ESPN like Wilbon, his GM gets to go shopping with Gilbert’s Black Amex. The statement arrived three years later and Grant was fired. Even if the players do develop and somehow Kyrie and Dion can work together for more than a week the firing was justifiable.

As Rob says, it is pretty much obvious that you need three all stars to contend.

But Rob went off the tracks saying that KI, LD, and AV are all stars so the Cavs can compete. KI is officially an all star, but he shouldn’t be. He might grow into one. LD used to be an all star, but is clearly past his prime. AV is a wonderful guy, and maybe should have been an all star once, but never will. Furthermore, the rest of the team is not a strong enough cast to back up three average all stars.

Oh, BTW, don’t forget LD and AV are free agents and unlikely to be back. Anyone thinking the core is in place to compete must be writing from Colorado or Washington.

Grant’s legacy is going to be the abomination of rehiring Mike Brown coupled with his failure to build a cohesive team.

Mike Brown is a nice guy and he loves Cleveland. Unfortunately, he is incompetent installing an offense and he doesn’t have the respect of his players. Kyrie is one of the most talented offensive players in the league and he’s regressing under Mike Brown’s watch. And, by the way, our defense sucks. The players make plays, but with a young team, it’s the coach that has to be accountable for getting them to play well.

I don’t know where the Cavs go from here? They are just abysmal. Perhaps the only teams worse off than us are Detroit, the Knicks, and Brooklyn. Let’s just hope that Gilbert isn’t really sweet on Joe Dumars or we’ll be even worse off.

Please ignore my first comment. I was bumming out at the thought of another decade of Cavs lameness and my usual cheerful disposition got pushed aside by my inner obnoxious guy. Sorry about that. I do stand by my second comment.

Due to the nature of the questions a few things weren’t brought up regarding some of moves Grant made that turned out better than expected. Certainly, Alonzo Gee, C.J. Miles, and Matthew Dellavedova have all been great value players. C.J. Miles currently leads the team in +/- and has been great in a Cavs uniform minus that first month last season.

Actually Raoul I was thinking similarly before I read your post. What I don’t see much of if any on here is the talk about the culture of the team and Chris Grant’s apparent failure to install the culture that Gilbert seeks. Hearing Griffin talking leads me to believe the team is seeking a new approach to establishing the culture the ownership demands and the product that we receive as fans. I think Grant’s ultimate downfall was giving himself and the players a pass for showing good things occasionally but not demanding and pressing them to do it each and every night as professionals. The Cavs do not have a talent problem… they have a culture of losing basketball and trying to look cool versus making mistakes and moving on and being better for it. I hope Mike Brown gets this message and continues to challenge the players to maximize their potential.

-For me it all starts and ends with Kyrie. Can he step up to his platform and lead the team by playing a winning brand of ball?
-I keep waiting for Jack to breakout of his slump and I root for him every game. I think it’s a slump.
-Why do the Cavs take so damn many long twos? Definitely the worst shot in basketball.
-Bennett will be a good player. How good is up to him.
-Get to the rim and finish or get to the rim and pass, but get your ass to the rim!

The players that Grant acquired were high character “good guys” that were hard workers from winning programs. The exception was Dion Waters who, presumably, was brought in to add a tough Philly edge to the group – and rightfully so. That’s the culture that Grant tried to establish.

However, they were young and inexperienced and they lost a lot. When you lose a lot it becomes somewhat acceptable. Once a losing culture is established it’s difficult to break. Players on losing teams start to play for themselves.

That’s why intentionally tanking is so harmful. The process that gives you an opportunity to obtain a top five NBA talent is the same process that brings nearly irreversible dysfunction to the family.

I may be naive, but I don’t think Grant intentionally tanked. I don’t even think Scott tanked. However, they may have sacrificed wins by focusing on acquiring draft picks and preserving cap space more than spending on immediate help thinking it would lead to better long term success. I don’t see how GM’s can give players passes. I only see how coaches can.

I liked David Griffin’s interview a lot. I think there is some real NBA talent on the team (Kyrie, Dion, Zeller, Delly, Bennett, Andy) and some cap space (even if Deng leaves), draft picks, and Delly. If they can get the team culture fixed they can be a good team in the coming years. Even if they don’t make the playoffs this year, if they build on the what we’ve seen the last 2 games going forward I will be OK.

I don’t think Brown is a good coach, but the team played so bad under Byron that he had to go.

Earl Clark’s contract is non-guarnteed next year right? A 1 year small contract with a non guaranteed 2nd year is never a bad move as the 2nd year acts as a trade exception. If that’s his worst move he’s the best GM ever. Jaret Jack and Brown were the only 2 acceptable answers in my mind.

Also his Free agent record would look a lot better if Kyle Korver hadn’t taken less money to play in Atlanta. That removes jaret Jack and adds Korver. That adds 5 wins minimum in my opinion. That was the unluckiest move in Grant’s tenure. That and tanking for probably the 3 worst consecutive drafts ever. (Taken as a whole not individually)

Grant’s only mistake was Brown. He took some chances and some paid and some didn’t and that is normal. What Cavs need is the right chemistry , something that’s been missing from the start . The talent is there, chemistry forget it.Go Cavs

Grant’s downfall was that the 2011-2013 drafts may be the 3 worst consecutive drafts ever in terms of stars and game changers. Kyrie, Anthony Davis, Liliard and Drummond. Thats it. I don’t think that Kyrie or Liliard are good enough to ever be the best player on a contender let alone a champion either. Drummond is still to raw but can develop into a monster and Davis if he doesn’t get derailed by injuries will be an MVP candidate. That was his downfall. He is actually very good at identifing the best player available. KI nailed it. TT 2nd best player in top 10 unless Jonas turns it around. Dion was the 2nd best non-point prospect. Andre Drummond though had tons of charactor issues and may have been red flagged so Grant nailed that pick too. That record right there is better than Sam Presti’s. The only diference is the quality of the drafts.
Grant was great afinding cheap free agents like Gee, Delly, CJ, Livingston, Bynum. He also missed but only one of those was a big deal in Jack. Jack was the most inexcusable move of his tenure. However before he signed Jack he went after Korver who took less money to play in Atlanta. If we have Korver instead of Jack thats a 5 win difference minimum.

As noted above a few times its the 2010 season, Grants first, which was just a colossal failure and showed that Ferry never got anyone legit to support Lebron. Its no wonder the dude left at least one of many reasons. That 2010 assembly of players was horrible and really set the team back even more. Yes the drafts past three years haven’t been great, but there is talent on the team its how to utilize said talent to win games. That has been the major issue for these teams and maybe it’ll get figured out soon, but the drafts have been avg at best so swapping TT for Jonas or Barnes for Waiters won’t make that much of a difference.

I’m sure I’m missing a bunch more. I don’t include the Bennett selection a failure yet. I don’t count any of the draft selections a fail. In fact I think most of them are or are going to be soon successes.

@Raoul, my point was signing both of them would have been, or in Jack’s case is, a mistake. Would have Korver been more productive than Jack? I think so and agree, but neither one of them is what the Cavs need to succeed. Brown has no clue how to play CJ Miles. I would have that man jacking up many more 3 pointers per game than what he is doing today, with plays actually designed for him. He is an absolute stud at the 3 point line. The 20 minutes Brown has him playing a game is a travesty IMHO.

Rodney, nothing Brown is doing with his offensive scheme is allowing Miles to flourish. He might be having a decent year, but as far as I can tell, and I do watch each game pretty intently, it’s just Miles getting bail out 3’s. Miles’ numbers are not really what I would consider a career year, his minutes are slightly down, PPG are down, his attempts are down, 3P% is up, his FG% is up, why is he not playing more? Why are we not seeing more CJ Miles sets?

Drafting Waiters was a mistake despite his potential because he does not fit with the style the team allows Kyrie to play, taking time off on defense and playing one on five basketball on many possessions.

Letting Livingston go without an offer and then overpaying Jack was a horrible mistake in my opinion, especially given Livingston’s size and style difference to the other guards on the roster. Jack is making $6mil this year and Livingston is making less than $1mil.

Finally, the choice to draft Bennett looks to be a disaster. The Cavs chose him based upon an expectation to be in the playoffs. If the Cavs had planned on not making the playoffs this season, I bet they would have taken Noel who fills a better long term need. Instead they tried to take an impact-now-player and got a wait-and-see player. Here we are sitting at 12th in the East when a .500 record might earn home court in the playoffs.

The Cavs got incredibly lucky in getting 4 top 4 picks in three years. They got incredibly UNlucky when those picks came out of 3 of the worst draft classes in a long time. Our best talent (Kyrie) is nowhere near a Durant, LeBron, or Wade caliber player. TT, Waiters, and Bennett are all guys that would not be in the top 5-10 in many other drafts. Grant did a phenomenal job of stockpiling assets. Unfortunately, we were picking from a pool of players that simply weren’t elite talents.

Imagine if this past year’s draft could have landed us a Durant-caliber player to go along with Kyrie, Dion, and TT. That would make this team one of the most exciting, up-and-coming teams in the league. Unfortunately, the cards did not fall for us.

Also – everyone needs to just knock it off with the Bennett pick. Honestly, who else would you have taken? Oladipo? Much lower ceiling and an “impact now” guy. Noel? Nobody else in the draft has done aaaaaaanything. Bennett also plays for a defense-first coach on a team with zero leadership, coming off of shoulder surgery, with zero offensive system to help him out.

Cleveland is the worst situation for any of the draft’s talent to come play. This team is a disaster.

The Lineup: (Click for Author’s Archive)

Nate Smith is an Associate Editor. He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska, and moved to NE Ohio in 2000. He adopted the Cavs in 2003 and graduated from Kent State in 2009 with a BA in English. He can be contacted at oldseaminer@gmail.com or @oldseaminer on Twitter.

Tom Pestak is an Associate Editor. He's from the west side of Cleveland and lives and (mostly) dies by the success and (mostly) failures of his beloved teams. You can watch his fanaticism during Cavs games @tompestak.

Robert Attenweiler is a Staff Writer. Originally from OH, he's long made his home in NYC where he writes plays and screenplays (www.disgracedproductions.com) some of which end up being about Ohio, basketball or both. He has also written for The Classical and the blog Raising the Cadavalier. You can contact him at rattenweiler@gmail.com or @cadavalier.

Benjamin Werth is a Staff Writer. He was born in Cleveland and raised in Mentor, OH. He now lives in Germany where he is an opera singer and actor. He can be reached at blfwerth@gmail.com.

Cory Hughey is a Staff Writer. He grew up in Youngstown, the Gary, Indiana of Ohio. He graduated from Youngstown State in 2008 with a worthless telecommunications degree. He can be contacted at theleperfromwatts@yahoo.com or @coryhughey on Twitter.

David Wood is our Links Editor. He is a 2012 Graduate of Syracuse University with an English degree who loves bikes, beer, basketball, writing, and Rimbaud. He can be reached on Twitter: @nothingwood.

Mallory Factor is the voice of Cavs: The Podcast. By day Mallory works in fundraising and by night he runs a music business company. To see his music endeavors check out www.fivetracks.com. Hit him up at Malloryfactorii@gmail.com or @Malfii.

John Krolik is the Editor Emeritus of Cavs: The Blog. At present, he is pursuing a law degree at Tulane University. You can contact him at johnkrolik@gmail.com or @johnkrolik.

Follow Me On Twitter

General NBA

Other Places To Find My Work

The Comment Monster

A monster lives in the comments section of Cavs: The Blog, and he likes to feed on comments. We have very little idea about when he will strike. What we do know is that comments with 2 or more links will get filed into the spam folder, as will comments with foul or discriminatory language. The comment monster also seems to enjoy extra-long comments, so if you have a long comment, you may want to press copy before submitting a long comment and break it into multiple pieces if the monster eats it. If you are having particular trouble with the monster, email one of us and we will talk to him for you.